Ahmad 7382

Its chain of transmission is sahih, because Sufyan bin Uyayna heard from Ata bin Saaib before his memory changed, as we noted at 6490.Aghar, with the hamza and the ghayn both vowelled with fatha, is Abu Muslim of Madinah, who settled in Kufa, where the people of that city related from him. He is a trustworthy successor (tabii), who narrates from Abu Hurairah and Abu Saeed, both of whom shared in freeing him from slavery.Hafiz stated definitively in Tahdhib, 1:365, that Aghar was his given name, not a title, and he rejected the claim of those who said he was Abu Abdullah Salman Aghar, among whom he mentioned Abdul-Ghani bin Saeed, noting that Tabarani had preceded him in that claim.There is something questionable in what Hafiz said, because Musa bin Ismail, the teacher of Abu Dawud, said in his narration of this hadith, "from Salman Aghar." True, Bukhari did distinguish between the two in Kabir. There, at 1/2/44, under the letter alif, it says, "Aghar Abu Muslim, who heard from Abu Hurairah and Abu Saeed. Abu Ishaq Hamdani related from him. His hadith is found among the people of Kufa." Ahmad, meaning Ibn Hanbal, said, "Hajjaj told us, from Shuba, that Aghar was a preacher from the people of Madinah, of good repute, who met Abu Hurairah and Abu Saeed."Then at 2/2/138, under the letter sin, it says, "Salman Aghar Abu Abdullah, freedman of Juhayna, who heard from Abu Hurairah. Ibn Ubaydullah and Asbahani related from him, and Zuhri heard from him."Ibn Abu Hatim likewise distinguished between the two in Jarh wal-Tadil, but he mixed things up somewhat. There, at 1/1/308, under the letter alif, it says, "Aghar Abu Muslim, who related from Abu Hurairah and Abu Saeed. Abu Ishaq Hamdani, Abu Jafar Farra, and Ata bin Saaib related from him." Then he related, by his own chain from Ahmad bin Hanbal, the same statement of Shuba that Bukhari had related.Then at 2/1/297, under the letter sin, he said, "Salman Abu Abdullah Aghar, freedman of Juhayna, an Asbahani, who related from... and from Abu Saeed Khudri and Abu Hurairah. Zuhri related from him," and he went on to list some of those who related from him. The point where the confusion lies is that he related, in this entry, the same statement of Shuba that had already appeared in the entry of the other Aghar, by his chain from Ahmad bin Hanbal.What appears clear to me is that this is one and the same person, from whom both the people of Madinah and the people of Kufa related. Some gave him the kunya Abu Muslim and others Abu Abdullah. So either he had two kunyas, or an error occurred in one of them.Ibn Hibban did not distinguish between the two in Thiqat, but rather gave a single entry, which is not fully adequate. On page 144 he said, "Aghar bin Abdullah Abu Muslim, a Kufan, who relates from Abu Hurairah and Abu Saeed Khudri. Abu Ishaq Sabi and Ata bin Saaib related from him."As for Imam Ahmad's statement that Sufyan said the first time, "that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ," and then repeated it saying, "Aghar, from Abu Hurairah," what is meant is that Sufyan explicitly attributed it the first time, elevating it to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, then repeated it another time in the form of a report stopped at Abu Hurairah, without stating the elevation explicitly. The narrators other than Sufyan related it as elevated in the narrations we shall point to in the source references. Even so, it counts as elevated by ruling even if the elevation is not explicitly stated, because this is a matter that cannot be arrived at through personal reasoning or analogy, as is self-evident.Abu Dawud related the hadith at 4090, 4:102 of Awn al-Mabud, from Musa bin Ismail, from Hammad, and from Hannad, from Abu Ahwas, both of them from Ata bin Saaib. Ibn Majah likewise related it at 4174, from Hannad, from Abu Ahwas, and in both of their versions it reads "grandeur" instead of "might." Munziri attributed it in Targhib wal-Tarhib, 4:16, to Ibn Hibban in his Sahih as well.Muslim related it, at 2:292, in similar wording, through the narration of Amash, from Abu Ishaq Sabi, from Abu Muslim Aghar, from Abu Saeed Khudri and Abu Hurairah together.As for his wording "alqihi," this is how it appears in the manuscripts marked H and M, and on this reading the "man" in his statement "fa-man nazaani" would function as a relative pronoun. In manuscript K, and in a marginal copy of M marked as authenticated, it reads "alqihu," and on this reading "man" would function as a conditional particle.